Explore the evidence

14 of 88 decisions · clear everything

Survives the gold standard Independent, durable, rigorous The debunked shelf Cheap wins For parents at home Famous numbers, deflated Where we admit ignorance The terrain

evidenceall drop D A–B A only

evaluatorany no dev-led independent

durabilityany follow-up ≥1yr ≥2yr

what are these? →

Your situation · from the applicability layer — absence means “not yet assessed,” never “doesn’t apply”

who's delivering

group / setting

cost

outcome class

Timed retrieval practice builds arithmetic automaticity — beating identical untimed tutoring head-to-head — and the anti-timed-test harm claims have no causal evidence.

strong supportconf: highgc: low

7/711/48connected:Does homeschooling raise achieveme Spaced (distributed) practice Word problems, schema instruction,

Math-fact fluency and timed practice (and the anti-timed-test claims) · math · ages 5–12

Minimal-guidance math trailed every rival in the one multi-curriculum RCT; explicit instruction for strugglers is math's most replicated result.

moderate supportconf: highgc: low

10/1021/48connected:Explicit instruction vs discovery/

Explicit vs reform/constructivist math instruction · math · ages 5–18

Word-problem solving is its own skill: computation fluency doesn't produce it. Teaching problem schemas explicitly does (~0.25–0.45 SD on trained content).

moderate supportconf: highgc: low

7/78/48connected:Math-fact fluency and timed practi Worked examples (studying solution

Word problems, schema instruction, and the conceptual-vs-procedural question · math · ages 6–14

Neither acceleration mandates nor delay mandates work — readiness-matched placement does. Push everyone and the median falls; hold everyone back and the top falls.

mixedconf: highgc: low

9/936/48connected:Acceleration and gifted programs School starting age, relative age,

Algebra timing — acceleration mandates, delay mandates, and readiness-based placement · math · ages 11–18

Grit is conscientiousness renamed and adds 0.4% to grade prediction; self-control genuinely predicts life outcomes but is 60% heritable with zero shared environment, and training moves ratings, not lives.

mixedconf: highgc: medium

20/2036/48connected:Should a school buy a social and e Does teaching a growth mindset rai How should a school run its classr

Are self-control and grit teachable levers on achievement? · character · ages 4–18

Growth-mindset interventions change beliefs almost everywhere and change achievement almost nowhere: the two independent national-scale trials measured standardized tests and found exactly zero.

mixedconf: highgc: low

18/1829/48connected:Fadeout Systematic/explicit phonics vs who Talent and trainability Are self-control and grit teachabl

Does teaching a growth mindset raise achievement? · character · ages 4–18

Mastery learning moves tests of what it taught (~0.25) and barely moves independent measures (~0.05) — and time-to-mastery gaps widen, converting ability differences into time.

mixedconf: highgc: low

6/69/48connected:Does educational technology raise Retrieval practice (the testing ef Placement and mastery diagnosis

Mastery learning (teach → test → reteach to criterion → advance) · mastery · ages 6–18 · method

The textbook matters at the bottom, not the top: avoid the demonstrated losers; mainstream choices now differ by ~0.02 SD.

mixedconf: highgc: low

11/1124/48connected:Background knowledge and vocabular School spending, charters, and wha

Math curriculum choice — how much does the textbook matter? · math · ages 5–14

SEL programmes move the ratings they are evaluated on far more than the attainment they are sold on: the famous +0.27 is now 0.10, and no large independent trial has reproduced it on an externally marked test.

mixedconf: highgc: low

19/1948/48connected:Are self-control and grit teachabl How should a school run its classr

Should a school buy a social and emotional learning programme? · character · ages 4–18

Executive function trains like a task, not like a capacity: gains are real, narrow, and gone at follow-up, EF curricula are null under independent trial, and the latent construct is ~100% heritable.

no effectconf: highgc: low

21/2148/48connected:Does working-memory or brain train How should a school run its classr Fadeout Talent and trainability

Can executive function be trained, and does it transfer to learning? · character · ages 4–18

Matching instruction to 'learning styles' does nothing: real matching experiments return d=.04. The correlational literature IS the myth.

debunkedconf: highgc: low

13/1324/48connected:Brain Gym, Whole Brain Teaching, a

Does matching instruction to a child's "learning style" improve learning? · debunked · ages 4–18 · debunked

Manipulatives help when bland, guided, and aged ~7–11 — a guided-representation effect, not 'hands-on learning.' Rich, toy-like objects hurt transfer.

moderate supportconf: mediumgc: low

3/36/48

Manipulatives and concrete-representational-abstract (CRA) sequences · math · ages 5–14

Never operationalised well enough to test: no MI-based trial meets even a loose evidential bar. Four decades in, a valid evaluation is still impossible.

insufficientconf: mediumgc: medium

4/412/48connected:Does teaching movement transfer to

Should Gardner's multiple intelligences be used as a basis for instruction? · debunked · ages 4–18 · debunked

Brain Gym, Fast ForWord, coloured overlays, the Mozart effect: tested and failed, or never evidence-based at all. Mozart works exactly as well as any other music.

debunkedconf: mediumgc: low

11/1118/48connected:Does teaching visual art produce a Does matching instruction to a chi Does working-memory or brain train Does learning music make children

Brain Gym, Whole Brain Teaching, and the smaller classroom brain fads · debunked · ages 4–18 · debunked

The URL is the state — any view you build here is a permalink you can hand to someone mid-argument.